Republican Ron Paul and Media Ignorance

[Skorzeny]

I have been struck in awe at how little Ron Paul is mentioned across this forum, considering that there are thousands of active members. Is the ignorance being practiced by CNN and FOX over there really so bad that USA citizens are completely in the dark about Ron Paul? He is truly the only candidate in the entire USA political scene who has a responsible and sensible approach to America's future and with it, the unified Western world. (Yes, I would like to confirm now that I am Australian, not American, but I follow the theatres of international relations and politics avidly - it is an area of study I plan to explore in the near future).

So yes, my question is, is it really that bad over there? To the point that the only people whom are considered acceptable candidates in the Republican Race are Romney, Gingrich (whom Paul is beating!) and the psychopathic Santorum?

Ron Paul Republican Candidate 2012:
[youtube]n5I0E75G8-g[/youtube]

Ron Paul "What-If" Speech:
[youtube]_Cmm2PAm48E[/youtube]

Ron Paul "Plan" 2012 Television Commercial
[youtube]EIAVKUqeuQw[/youtube]

CNN Soldier Supporting Ron Paul Censored on Live Television:
[youtube]fMdrwhDoZjQ[/youtube]

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I've actually mentioned Ron Paul once or twice. However, I spend most of my time here discussing religion, and don't too often stray from the religious threads. But I will agree, Ron Paul does not get enough air time, if not here, than in the popular media. I have a few issues with him, but overall, he seems to be the best choice for us.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

While I too have a few issues with Ron Paul, I find more often than not, he's the best candidate of the other half. If he would stop saying things like, "I would eliminate the dept of education" and other important depts., I would vote for him over Obama.

 

[Skorzeny]

What issues do you have with him exactly? What do you mean by 'a few'?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

My main problem with him is that he's a racist.

 

[Skorzeny]

My main problem with him is that he's a racist.

Well, that's just answered all of my questions in the OP. I would suggest thinking for yourself in regards to how you view a man who has the potential opportunity to lead the current world superpower rather than letting Westernised media tell you how to view him.

My point - he is not a racist in the slightest.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It has nothing to do with the media. I have no idea how the media portrays Ron Paul. But, in the realm of him being a racist, there are different sources.

 

[Revoltingest]

My main problem with him is that he's a racist.

Hogwash.
About as much as Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, or Kerry was a war hero.
(But on the internet, everything can be true.)
There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike him....I'd concentrate on those.

 

[Mathematician]

Er, he is a racist, albeit he's been trying to backtrack for the last decade. That is a pretty hefty shoe to carry in a multicultural nation like the US. If you have over a dozen racist articles published in your name for two decades, and refer back to them in interviews, only to disavow them years down the road, you've got some explain' to do.

Ron Paul has received plenty of media attention. No, not comparable to Romney, but he's not won a single primary or caucus yet, so...

 

[Revoltingest]

Er, he is a racist, albeit he's been trying to backtrack for the last decade. That is a pretty hefty shoe to carry in a multicultural nation like the US. If you have over a dozen racist articles published in your name for two decades, and refer back to them in interviews, only to disavow them years down the road, you've got some explain' to do.
Ron Paul has received plenty of media attention. No, not comparable to Romney, but he's not won a single primary or caucus yet, so...

You say they're in his name, but you don't go so far as to claim he wrote them.
This is a rather weak attribution. Got anything stronger?

 

[Shermana]

I used to support Cain, til he showed his true colors as a Gingrich-alike, (and also because I thought Paul had no real chance), now I am back to being a "Paulbot".

He is not racist whatsoever, if anything, Gingrich can be more accurately labeled as Racist, and if you want to get kinda technical, Romney's Church Affiliation only recently allowed Black Church members to hold the priesthood but as far as I know still maintains their position of them having the "Curse of Cain" as their "prophet" Brigham Young declared. Whether they still hold that or not or Romney believes it, I'd say that's more "dirt" than anything of Paul's newsletters. One might say that Paul should have had more control over his Newsletters, but that's another story, whether he agreed with everything being printed in them is very up to debate.

As a Zionist, I believe Paul is the best choice of the candidates, I've noticed many fellow Jews who don't like Paul because of his words often are quick to run to Romney and Gingrich who want to cut Israel foreign funding to zero unless there are even more strings attached, without realizing what their own policies are. And the words of Dondero are probably lies since he's a disgruntled ex-ployee who now works for Romney and can't back up anything he said and likely never met the man enough to get so personal, I'd rather have someone who talks trash on Israel but will give them a free hand to do whatever they want than someone who sweet talks Israel while their policy involves keeping the dog leash on them. As a Capitalist, I also believe Paul is the only Candidate who can effectively neuter much of the waste and corruption involved with government-state collusion.

I don't know why the Dept. of Education is so important, I can't see why any Conservative (or sane person) would have a shred of respect for the Dept. of Education, perhaps someone can explain why we need to keep it and what good it actually does. And the Dept. of Energy.

As for Paul not winning any caucusses, with all the widespread accusations of Vote Fraud going on, you have to wonder WHY they are vote frauding to begin with. And it really doesn't matter too much because he's racking up those delegates either way.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Hogwash.
About as much as Obama is a Muslim from Kenya, or Kerry was a war hero.
(But on the internet, everything can be true.)
There are plenty of valid reasons to dislike him....I'd concentrate on those.

I think me and you have discussed this on another thread, where I pointed out the hacktivist group Anonymous revealed emails between Paul and white supremacist and Nazi groups.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think me and you have discussed this on another thread, where I pointed out the hacktivist group Anonymous revealed emails between Paul and white supremacist and Nazi groups.

Tis easy for fringe sources to claim things.
I've never seen convincing evidence.
Paul once ran for prez on the Libertarian ticket.
We don't run Nazis. The vetting process would'a scratched any Hitlerian types.

I speculate that people grasp at such connections because they dislike his agenda, but it can be hard for lefties to attack because of some shared views:
- Anti-war
- Pro-drug legalization
- Pro-choice (after a fashion)
- Anti-bail-out for corporations

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

http://weirdloadreboot.com/blog/201...-and-finds-many-current-ron-paul-connections/

After reading the article, scroll down to read the official Anonymous report.

 

[Skorzeny]

Anonymous Hacks Neo-Nazis and Finds Many Current Ron Paul Connections

After reading the article, scroll down to read the official Anonymous report.

Anonymous is a group with absolutely no organisation whatsoever - its very name should make that clear. It has no leader, no goals, no creed and next-to-no communication between 'members'. It is an umbrella term used by persons who act outside the law to shift blame off of themselves and onto nobody in particular; specifically, a group that doesn't actually exist and so cannot be attacked. The claim 'Anonymous' is also available for anyone to utilise; because there's no way to prove either way, one may call 'Anonymous did it!' and the only remaining variable between legitimacy and bulltish is the public's ability to think for themselves.

All of that said, the terms 'official' (when used in inference of 'legitimate' or 'reliable') and 'Anonymous' do not mesh. There is absolutely no way to prove the legitimacy of such claims because the author/obtainer of the information itself remains unidentifiable, and for as long as Anonymous continues as a new-gen phenomenon, they, and persons like them, always will.

Edit: There's something I forgot to add that I think has quite a bit of relevance here... Ron Paul is aware that his political campaign receives funding from groups like Stormfront, however, he does not encourage it, or ask for it. There exists an interview/media speech in which he explicitly expresses his hatred for groups that advocate white supremacy and other forms of racism, and says that instead of returning the money to such groups, his party chooses to utilise the funds for better use; getting him behind the Presidential desk.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Anonymous is a group with absolutely no organisation whatsoever - its very name should make that clear. It has no leader, no goals, no creed and next-to-no communication between 'members'. It is an umbrella term used by persons who act outside the law to shift blame off of themselves and onto nobody in particular; specifically, a group that doesn't actually exist and so cannot be attacked. The claim 'Anonymous' is also available for anyone to utilise; because there's no way to prove either way, one may call 'Anonymous did it!' and the only remaining variable between legitimacy and bulltish is the public's ability to think for themselves.

All of that said, the terms 'official' (when used in inference of 'legitimate' or 'reliable') and 'Anonymous' do not mesh. There is absolutely no way to prove the legitimacy of such claims because the author/obtainer of the information itself remains unidentifiable, and for as long as Anonymous continues as a new-gen phenomenon, they, and persons like them, always will.

Common misconceptions. There's a bit more organization to Anonymous than none at all. And there is communication between members, as they have websites where such communication and organization takes place. It's not as organized as, say, the Catholic church, but there is some, although not much. Enough to get a job done, so to speak.

 

[Skorzeny]

Common misconceptions. There's a bit more organization to Anonymous than none at all. And there is communication between members, as they have websites where such communication and organization takes place. It's not as organized as, say, the Catholic church, but there is some, although not much. Enough to get a job done, so to speak.

There is a reason I said 'next-to-no communication' rather than 'no communication'. The only information relayed between 'members' of Anonymous is what is necessary to undertake an activity/crack (not 'hack'. That's a pet-peeve of mine) so as to gather support for that instance of action. That, however, is where it ends. Anonymous remains a term, rather than an active, communicating group.

 

[DandyAndy]

While I too have a few issues with Ron Paul, I find more often than not, he's the best candidate of the other half. If he would stop saying things like, "I would eliminate the dept of education" and other important depts., I would vote for him over Obama.

How is the Department of Education important? Education is certainly important, but the department? What does the department do that is so important?

Personally I see most governmental departments as black holes for $$$ and ripe for corruption. Besides, who can better decide what your child is taught in school - a bureaucrat in an office thousands of miles away or your local community, whether it be city, county or state?

Why do we need a department to make these decisions? Why can't schools and districts and parents make these important decisions about education instead?

 

[Mathematician]

How is the Department of Education important? Education is certainly important, but the department? What does the department do that is so important?

Personally I see most governmental departments as black holes for $$$ and ripe for corruption. Besides, who can better decide what your child is taught in school - a bureaucrat in an office thousands of miles away or your local community, whether it be city, county or state?

Why do we need a department to make these decisions? Why can't schools and districts and parents make these important decisions about education instead?

Teachers can decide best since they're actually trained in both the subjects and the methods of teaching, but at the moment city and district offices are filled with politicians, businessmen, and lunatic parents anyway...

 

[DandyAndy]

My main problem with him is that he's a racist.

The concept of race is a collectivist idea - you judge a large group of people based on a single identifier, such as the color of their skin. Therefore racism is collectivist. Ron Paul, according to his own writings and words, is as anti-collectivist as it gets. He views people as individuals with individual rights and liberties and freedoms - there is no room for race or gender.

If you compare random newsletters and out of context quotes with his actions, words, and writings then the scale tips VERY heavily in one direction - Ron Paul is not a racist.